SR-8-A (37)
, 11
e
e
CA:RMM:brsolIc5/word
City CouncIl Meeting 10-28-86
Santa Monica, Californi~
~A
"2- ,t) <J -- D 0 ~ OCT 2 8 \986
STAFF REPORT
TO: Mayor and CIty CouncIl
FROM: CIty Attorney
SUBJECT: Ordinance AddIng Chapter 2B to ArtIcle VI
of the Santa MonIca MunIcIpal Code Relatin0
to SolIcitatIons and Peddling
INTRODUCTION
Santa MonIca MunIcI~al Code Sections 6243 through 6243J
dealing wIth charitable solicitatIons have not been enforced
on the advIce of the CIty Attorney for failure to comply wIth
the requIrements of the First Amendment of the UnIted States
ConstItution.
ThIS Staff Report analyzes In some detaIl the
constItutIonal Issues presented by the CIty'S solIcitation
ordInance and recommpnds a mInImal system of regulation
At Its meetIng on September 18, 1986, the City CouncIl
requested supplemental
InformatIon concerning the nature of
regulatIons In adjOIning communitIes.
In addItIon, the City
CounCIl requested conSIderatIon of IndIvidual Councllmember
concerns.
OVERVIEW OF CURRENT REGULATIONS
MunICIpal
Code SectIon 6243 establishes a complex
regulatory system applIcable to varIOUS types of charItable
solicitatIons. Section 6243 prohibIts solicitation within the
1
~A
BeT 2 8 \.
e
e
City unless the solICItor has first received a permit from the
City.
SectIons 6243A and 6243B make the permIt requIremp.nt
applicable to all types of charItable solIcitatIons, IncludIng
rummage sales and benefIts.
In effect, thpse two sectIons
establish a very broad defInItIon for the term "soliCItation."
SectIon
6243C sets forth the
nermIt aoollcatlon oroep-S5.
. . . .
It
requires disclosure of InformatIon concernIng the applicant.
SectIon 6243D requires the City Managpr to prOVIde the
Information to the Chief of Police and reqUIres the Chief of
PolIce to "Investigate the InformatIon" and prepare a report
on it to the CIty Manager WIthin forty-fIve (45) days of the
applIcation date.
Pursuant to Section 6243E, the City Manager must grant a
permit for the solICItatIon unless he finds that th@re is
substantIal eVIdence either that the application contains
untrue InformatIon or that a fraud would bp perpetrated upon
the publIC by the applIcant. The sectIon also lImits the
permIt perIod to SIX months and reqUIres the applIcant to post
bond In the amount of $1,000.00 with the City. The bond
secures payment to the benpficlary
Finally, SectIon 6243F.
requires that all Juvenile soliCItors be accompanied and
supervised by adults.
Section 6243F establIshes a lImIted exception from the
permit reqUirement for organIzatIons which have be~n 10
existence In and have malntained headquarters or a place of
worship In the City for fIVP years} prOVIded that such
organIzatIons must have obtained a permIt at some tIme durIng
2
e
e
the five year perIod. OrganIzations exempted by thIS sectIon
must, neverth~less, notIfy thp CIty Manager or any Intendpd
soliCItations.
SectIon 6243G authorizes the CIty Manager to revoke a
permit if the permlttep falls to operate In accordance WIth
InformatIon on its applIcation.
SectIon 6243H ~xempts mall soliCItatIons from the permIt
reqUIrement.
Section 62431 Imposes a $5.00 license fee for rummage
sales held by organizatIons WIth headquarters outsldp. the CIty
or a majorIty of members lIVIng outSIde the City. The fee
covers a two day perIod.
Section 6243J prOhIbits telephone sales WIthin the CIty.
However, the sectIon exempts solIcitatIons by permittees so
long as the soliCItor receives no compensatIon for the
solICItatIon.
ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES
The fundamental questIon presented by a solICItation
ordInance IS whether or not It Interferes with thp free speech
rights Incorporated In the First Amendment and made applicable
to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. The CalIfornIa
ConstitutIon also contaIns a SImIlar guaranty in ArtIcle I,
SectIon 2.
The United States Supreme Court has specifically stated
that charItable appeals for funds are WIthIn thp FIrst
Amendment speech protection:
3
, ,
e
e
[C]harltable appeals for funds,
on the
street or door to door, Involve a varIety
of speech Interests communicatIon of
InformatIon,
the
dissemInation
and
propagatIon of views and Ideas, and the
advocacy of causp.s -- that are WIthIn the
protection
of
the
First
Amendmen t .
VIllaqe
Better
(1980).
FIrst
of Schaumburq v.
EnVironment, 444
CItIzens for a
u.s.
620,
632
preferred
because
place
of theIr
Amendment rIghts have traditIonally enJoyed a
In the hIerarchy of constItutIonal rIghts
"fragile nature." One aspect of this
deference is that the UnIted States Supreme Court reqUIres
more
speCIfICIty in enactments
applicable to First Amendment
See SmIth v. Goouen: 415 U.S.
rIghts than In other contexts.
566, 573 (1974),
There IS no question that It
is
approprIate for the CIty
to have a soliCItatIon ordInance. The UnIted States Supreme
Court has specifically recognIzed that governmental entities
may regulate solICItatIon under the polIce power:
There IS, of course; no absolute right
under the Federal ConstItutIon to enter on
the prIvate premises of another and knock
on a door for any purpose, and the polIce
power permIts reasonable regulation for
publiC safety. WA cannot say, and Indeed
4
, .
e
e
appellants do not argue} that door-to-door
canvassing and solIcItation are Immune
from regulatIon under the State's polIce
powe r ,
whether
the
purpose
of the
regulation IS to protect from danger or to
protect the peaceful enjoyment of the
home.
Hynes v. Mayor of Oradell, 425 U.S.
610, 620 (19761.
In the area of solICItatIon registratIon, free speech
rights are sUbJect to balancing with the state's legItImate
interests
in
protecting
the community from fraudulent
solIcitatIons, annoyance, and dIsruption of prIvacy. Thus,
the United States Supreme Court has stated:
OrdInances of the sort now before us
may be aimed at the protectIon of the
householder
from
annoyance)
IncludIng
Intrusion upon the hours of rest} and at
the
preventIon
of
crime.
Constant
callers,
whether
selling
pots
or
di stn but I ng
leaflets} may lessen thp
peaceful enjoyment of a home as much as a
neIghborhood glue factory or raIlroad yard
which zonIng ordInances may
prohibit In addItIon, burglars
frequently pose as canvassers, either In
order that they may have a pretense to
dIscover whether a house IS empty and
5
e
e
hence
purpose
order
ripe for
of spYIng
that they may
burglary,
out the
or
for
the
premIses In
return later.
CrIme
prevention may thus be the purpose of
regulatory ordInances. MartIn v.
Struthers, 319 U.S. 141, 144 (19431-
It is appropriate to regulate time, place, and manner of
expression so long as the regulatIon IS reasonable. Although
~reasonable~ IS an elusive term, deCISIonal law prOVides
approprIate gUIdelines.
The United States Supreme Court recently stated:
ExpreSSion; whether oral or wrItten
or symbolized by conduct,
reasonable time, place,
IS SUbJect to
and manner
restrIctIons.
restrIctions
We have often noted that
of
thIS kInd are valin
prOVided that they are justified WIthout
reference to the content of the regulated
speech, that they are narrowly tailored to
serve a SignIficant governmental Interest;
and that they leave open ample alternatIve
channels for communicatIon of thp
Information.
Clark
v. Communltv for
Creatjve Non-VIolence, 82 L. Ed. 2d 221,
227 (1984).
Moreover, such
requirement. However,
regulatIon can Include a permit
In ISSUIng a permIt restrictIng FIrst
6
, .
e
e
Am@ndment expreSSIon the lIcensing offIcial or agency should
eIther have no discretIon or should be gUIded by narrow and
specIfIc standards. EIther way there should be no arbItrary
dIscretion In the officIal to Issue or deny permits. See
Carreras v. CIty of AnaheIm, 768 F.2d 1039 (9th CIr. 1985):
UnIted States v. ChrIstopher] 700 F.2d 1253 f9th CIr. 1983).
In Perlman v. MunIcIpal Court, 99 Cal. App. 3d 568,
576,
160 Cal. Rptr. 567} 571 [19801, the Court of Appeal held
that solIcitatIon ordinances "must vest no dIscretion In the
lIcenSIng offiCIal or agency.
. unless such dIscretIon is
bounded
by
clear,
definite and obJectIve gUIdelines."
LIkeWIse, the California Supreme Court has stated:
(A}ny procedure WhICh allows
lIcenSIng
offiCIals WIde or unbounded
discretion in granting or denying permits
is constItutIonally Infirm becaus@ It
permits them to base their determInatIon
expressed.
D~llo~ v.
Ideas sought to be
Mu~icI~al Court, 4
on the content of the
Cal. 3d 8GO) 869-870, 484 P.2d 945, 951,
94 Cal. Rptr. 777, 783 (1971).
Accord Carrer~s v. Ci~y of AnaheI~, 768 F.2d 1039, 1049-50
[city's solicitation ordinance was unconstitutional because it
allowed CIty offICIals to deny or revoke permits on the baSIS
of unguided discretion}.
It IS In the ar@a of exceSSIve discretIon of the CIty
Manager that the suspended ordInance presents especially
7
. .
e
e
severe constitutIonal problems. It IS vague and provides
almost no standards; the City Manager has discretIon to deny a
permit if an applIcation contaIns "substantIal evidence that a
fraud would be perpetrated upon the public."
Aside from the issue of the amount of dIscretIon
allowed, if th~re IS any provision for reVIew prIor to
Issuance of a permIt, the decisIon must be made without delay
wIth prompt r@VIew of an adverse decIsIon availabl@. Thus,
the CalIfornIa Court of Appeal has held that an ordInance
"must Include suffICIent due process safeguards to Insure a
SWIft
and
adequate remedy by appeal."
Cal. App. 3d 568, 577, 160
P~rlman v. MunicIpal
Cal. Rptr. 567, 572
Court,
(1980).
SImIlarly, In finding a Fresno ordInance
constItutionally defectIve in part because of the pOSSibIlIty
of exceSSIve delay In respondIng to a permIt request, the
CalIfornia Court of Appeal stated:
At a mInimum, due process requires a
prompt adminIstratIve deCISIon on an
99
applicatIon for a lIcense and reasonably
prompt access to the courts. Hillman v.
BrItton, 111 Cal. App. 3d 810, 821, 168
Cal. Rptr. 852, 859-860 (1980).
Accord Carreras v. Cltv of Anaheim, 768 F.2d 1039, 1048-49
fClty'S solIcitation ordInance provided InsufficIent
procedural safeguards SInce It dId not reqUIre the CIty to act
8
e
e
on thp applicatIon
promptly) .
The
and
to
provIde
access
to
the courts
regard; It
application.
FInally, any overview of the
presented by a solIcitatIon ordInance
question of
restrIctive alternatIves available
suspended
allows
ordInance
is
serIously flawed In thIS
45 days for proceSSIng an
for as long
as
constitutIonal
Issues
least
restrictIve
means. Are less
for achieving
that, although
must also address the
speech
the same
purpose?
Courts
consIstently
hold
the less
restrIctIve alternatIve reduces effectiveness, the Increased
First
Amendment
protection
outweIghs
any
loss
of
effectiveness.
For
example, the
Struthers,
United States Supreme
319 U.S. 141 (1943):
Court held in
that a CIty
t:1artln
v.
ordInance bannIng all door to door soliCItatIon was overbroad.
Rather, a less restrictive alternatIve was available to thIS
prOhIbItIon. For example, the Court suggested, the city could
require identIficatIon devices and could provide for
punIshment of those who perSIst In callIng at R home In
definance of the occupant's WIshes. Id. at 148-49.
The United States Supreme Court recently addressed the
questIon of less restrIctIve alternatives:
The VIllage's legItimate interest in
preventIng fraud can be better served by
measures less IntrUSIve than a direct
prohIbItion on solICItatIon.
Fraudule-nt
9
e
e
misrepresentations can be prohibited and
the penal laws used to punish such conduct
directly.
Village
of
Schaumburg v.
Citizens for a Better Environmentf 444
V.S 620, 638 (1980).
The suspended ordinance also presents other problems.
Its bond requirement is unduly burdensome of First Amendment
rights.
Furthermore, Its exemption for certain organizations
based on their haVing been In Santa Monica for fIve years IS
dIscriminatory.
OVERVIEW OF ORDINANCES IN OTHER HUNICIPALITES
A. The CIty of ~ermosa ~each.
Hemosa Beach prOhIbIts any charitable solIcitation unless
a certificate of registratIon has been obtained from thp CIty
Manaaer.
J
To
obtaIn a certificate of registration, an
IndiVidual must fIle a registration statement With the City
Manager. This statement must Include such Information as: fa)
the name of person planning to soliCIt; (b) a descrIptIon of
the charitable purpose for WhICh the solicitation 15 to be
madej
(e) the Intended use of any contrIbutIons receIved; (d)
the indiViduals who wI!l be in dIrect charge or control of the
solICitation and their crimInal record; and fe) the tIme
period within WhiCh the SO!Icltatlon will be made, method and
means of conducting the solICItatIon, and expenses to be
incurred.
A $5 00 fee is charged.
The City Manager wI!l
issue a Certificate If all the above informatIon has been
10
e
e
furnIshed.
to provIde
behalf of
Individuals
InformatIon.
SOlIciting
certIfIcate
The ordInance also requIres the p~rson regIsterIng
a list of all individuals who WIll SOlICit on
the persons registerIng, IncludIng whether these
have a crImInal record and baSIC bIographIcal
The ordInance further reqUIres all IndIvIduals
on behalf of a person who has obtaIned a
of
registratIon
to
dIsplay a solicItor's
IdentIfIcatIon card. This card must Include such information
as:
( a 1
the name of the person who was Issued the
certIficate of registratIon, (b) the
(el a statement of the charitable
name of the solicItor,
purpose, and (dl the
percentage of antIcipated contributions which will be used to
further the charItable purpose. A procedure IS also
establIshed for the renewal of permits, revocaton of permits,
and an appeal process for an aggrieved individual. The hours
of solicitatIon are limited to between 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.
AdditIonally, no sollctatlon can been conducted at locatlon~
where SIgns such as ~no solIctatlon" are posted. Written
receIpts must generally be prOVIded. WIthIn thirty days after
the expIration of the certIficate of registration and any
renewal perIod, a complete financial statement must be flIed.
The ordinance governIng charItable solICitations does not
apply to solIcitatIons made for the dIrect benenflt of the
individual making the solIcitatIons or for the direct benenfit
of any polItIcal group/organization subject to federal or
state flnancial disclosure laws. ThIS ordinance also IS
inapplicable when the solicltatlons are made by persons other
11
e
e
than
a natural person from theIr members or when the
soliCItatIons occur on premIses not open to the public and
owned or controlled by th~ one makIng the solIciation.
B. The Citv of Beverlv Hllls.
Beverly HIlls requIres that a person secure a permIt from
the Director of PublIC Welfare before that person SolIcits
contrlbutions for any charItable or relIgIous purpose with
lImited exceptIons. An applIcatIon for thIS permit must
include information such as: (a) the name of the person
applYIng for the permit; (hl the purpose of the sOIIcIt~tIonJ
the total funds to be raIsed, and the use of the funds; (cl
who WIll dIsburse the receIpts; (d) the tim~ when the
solicitatIon WIll be made; (e) the cost of the soliCItation;
and (fl the character and extent of the charrable or relIgIOUS
work being done WIth the City. The DIrector of Public Welfare
reVIews the applIcation and WIll not grant it unless certaIn
conditIons are present IncludIng: (a) the applicant has a
good charact~r and reputatIon for honesty and Integrity; (bJ
the applicant has not engaged In fraudulent transactIons; (C)
the solICItatIon WIll not be a fraud on the public; and (dl
there WIll be no conflIct WIth other soliCItations. The
permit can also be revoked or suspended for certain enumerated
reasons. Anyone who solicits on behalf of the permittee must
carry detaIled Information about the permIttee and the nature
of the soliCItation.
SolICItatIon can only be conducted
between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. and cannot b~
conducted at residences where "no solicitors" SIgns appear.
12
e
e
WrItten receipts are generally required. A d~tall~d financial
report IS required withIn thlrty days after the SolIcItatIon
is completed. This ordinance does not apply if members of an
organIzation operated exclusively for religious and charItable
purposes solIcit other members or if the solICItations are in
the form of collections or contributions at the regular
assemblies or services of the orgainization. The requirements
also do not apply to polItIcal contributIons.
C. The CIty of Culver City.
Before an person can sOlIcit in Culver City, a notice of
IntentIon to SOlICIt must be filed wIth the CommIttee on
Permits and LIcenses. The notIce shall contain such
Information as: ra) the purpose of the solicItation and the
use of the contribution; (b) the need for the contribution;
(cl how the solIcItatIon WIll be made or conducted; and (dl
the expenses to be incurred. No person shall solicit unless
that persons possesses a solicItor's Information card. No
person can accept any charitable contributIon unless that
person has shown to the person solIcited the informatIon card
and the notice of IntentIon. Every person solIciting any
contrIbutIon for charItable purpose must fIle a report of
expenses and uses with the committee within 30 days after the
close of the solicItatIon Or after demand by the commIttee.
ReceIpts for contrIbutions are generally required unless fIve
dollars Or less IS given and the donor states that no receIpt
is necessary. The city's regulatIons do not apply when the
solIcItation is made on the premIses owned or occupIed by an
13
e
e
association upon whose behalf the solICitation IS made or if
the solicitations are made solely to members of the
association. The regulatIons also do not cover sollctatlons
for politIcal purposes.
D. The CIty of Los Angeles.
Any person planning to solicit shall fIrst file a notIce
of Intention to solicit with the Social Service Department.
ThIS notice shall Include: [al the purpose of thp
solicitatIon and the use to be made of the contributIons; (b)
the perIod of the solIcitatIon; (c) a statement which will
enable the publIC to determine the need for the solIcItation;
and (dl expenses to be Incurred. Each sollcitator must
possess an Information card when conducting solIcItations.
Said card shall Include the pertinent facts of the
solIcitatIon.
The solicitor must exhibit
or gIve the
A report of the
days after the
Information
solIcItation
to the person to be solicIted.
must be flIed within thirty
terminatIon date of the solicItatIon. ReceIpt~ must be
provided upon request. No solICItation can be conducted
door-to-door between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.
This ordinance does not apply when the solIcitation is made
upon the premises owned or occupied by the person upon whose
behalf the solicitatIon IS made; when an organizatIon IS
SOIIcltlng Its members; or when the soliCltatIon IS made for
evangelical, miSSIonary, or relIgious purposes. PolItIcal
soliCitatIons are also not included.
14
e
e
E. The City of Torrance.
No p~rson can sollClt funds for hImself or on beh~lf of
any other person without obtaining a fund certificate from the
license supervIsor.
The lIcense superVisor shall require th~
applicant to provide such Information as is necessary to
enable the License R~vlew bo~rd to determine whether to grant
the certificate.
The applIcant must present documentation or
eVIdence
showing
that the applIcant has no record of
conviction for any crIme of moral turpitude or any Violation
of any federal or state statute In the course of operating a
Similar actIvity to the one proposed.
The applicant must
screen all soliCitors who may contact the public to make
certaIn they have not committed certain enumerated crimes.
The applicant must also prOVIde the CIty WIth a record of Its
Income and expenses for the prior three years.
The LIcense
ReVIew
Board
shall
ISSUE?
the certifIcate If certain
requirements are met Including:
(a)
all statements made in
the application and other prOVIded docuementatIon are true:
(b) the purpose of the solicitation 1s a proper one; and, (el
the soliCitatIon materIals are not extortIonate, In VIolatIon
of the law, misleadIng, or inacurate.
All persons engaging in
solIcitation must present an
identity card to each person
solicited as well as copies of the Information required to be
submItted
prlor
to
obtalnina
..
the
certlflcate.
No
soliCItation shall be done after 9:00 p.m. or before 9:00 a.m.
After the solicItatlon IS completed,
the certificate holder
must make its books and other records avaIlable to the Revenue
lS
e
e
Administrator. The License ReVIew Board has the authorIty to
waIve or modIfy the reqUIrements of this ordInanc~.
Additionally, thIS ordInance does not apply to any charitable
soliCItatIon made upon premIses owned or occupIed by thp
assoclaton upon whose behalf such solicitation IS made or to
solICItatIons conducted only among members by other members at
the regular meetings, services, etc. of such assocIation.
F. The CIty of Manhattan Beach.
Manhattan Beach prOhIbIts charItable SolICItatIon unless
a certificate of regIstratIon is obtained from the CIty
Manager. To receIve a certIfIcate of regIstratIon, a
registratIon statement must be flIed with the city. ThIS
statement contaIns InformatIon such as: (a) the name of the
person regIstering; (b) a descrIptIon of the charltable
purpose and the intended use of the contrIbutIons receIved;
(c) the IndIVIduals authorIzed to dIsburse the proceeds; (d)
the tIme p~rlod of the solIcitation; [el thp. total amount
sought; (f) the expenses to be Incurred; and (g) a statement
of all contrIbutIons through soliCItatIon WIthin thp past
calendar year and the expenditure of such contributIons. The
applicant must compensate the CIty for the cost of
adminIstering thIS
also prOVIde the
need IdentIficatIon
ordInance. The person registering must
CIty with a lIst of those IndIVIduals who
cards All individuals who SOlIcit on
behalf of a person who has recelved a certIfIcate must V1Slbly
dIsplay a solICItors' IdentIfIcatIon card.
The IdentIficatIon
card contains such InformatIon as:
r a )
the SOlICItor's n~me;
16
e
e
(b) the name Cn the certlficatp of registration; and, (cl the
charitable purpose.
The City Manager reVIews the statement
and will
Issue a certlflcatp of reglstratlon unless Jt IS
Incomplete.
certificate
registrant
soliCitatIon
WIthIn thIrty days after the expIration of the
of registration and any renewal period, the
must fIle a complete fInancial statement. No
can be conducted at a reSIdence which has
indicated that no soliCItation IS wanted.
No one under the
age of sIxteen can SOliCIt unless supervised by an adult
within one block of the soliCitor. The ordInance does not
lImIt the hours of soliCitation. Generally, any sollctator
who receives money or anything of value In excess of $5.00
must gIve the doner a written receIpt. The registration
certificate is subject to revocation and an appeals process
has been establIshed for anyone aggrIeved by the procedure.
This ordinance does not Include soliCItatIons for the direct
benefit of the IndiVIdual making the solICItatIon or for the
direct benefit of any political group/organIzatIon subject to
federal or state fInanCIal disclosure laws. ThIS ordInance
also
does
not
apply
to
charitable solIcitatIons by
organizatIons from theIr members or charItable solICitations
on the premises owned or controlled by the person making the
solICitation or With the permiSSion of the owner or controller
of the premises.
17
e
e
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
The City's ordInance ha~ not been enforced due to its
constitutional defects since 1981. However, durIng this
perIod, the CIty has not had any signlflcant problems
resulting from thIS lack of enforcement. Indeed, gIven thIS
hIstory, several CouncIlmembers have questIoned why the C1ty
needs a solicitation ordInance at all. As such, we belIeve it
1S unnecessary to establIsh a new regulatory system Including
a permit requirements to replace the suspended ordInance.
Instead, It is recommended that an ordInance b~ adopted that
simply regulates solIcitation at a reSIdence. If thIS laCK of
regulatIon creates problems In the future, the City can adopt
amendments to thIS ordinance which address the speCIfic
problems that arIse.
This mInimal system of regulation keeps the City out of
the complex constItutIonal problems raIsed by more detaIled
regulatory systems. In addition, It avoids the addition of
CIty staff pOSItIons that would be reqUIred to
constitutionally operate a more complex regulatory system.
Th~ proposed ordInance adds Section 62BO to the Santa
MonIca MuniCIpal Code permItting reSIdents to post theIr homes
to prohIbit all soliCItatIon and peddlIng or to limIt the
hours of soliCItatIon and peddling. Imposing an absolute
prohibitIon
a
SIgn
at
on SolICItation or peddling wh~n a resident posts
hIS reSIdence prohibitIng trespaSSIng or
has been determIned to be constItutional. See
SolICItatIon
Martin v.
Struthers, 319 U,S. 141,
147-48 (19421; Ad Worldt
18
e
e
Inc. v. Townshlo of Doylestown, 672 F.2d 1136, 1141 (3rd Clr.
1982)j Van Nuvs PublIshIng Co. v. CIty of Thousand Oaks,S
Cal. 3d 817, 827, 489 P.2d B09, 815, 97 Cal. Rptr. 777, 783
(1971),
In
the
event
the
City Council deSIres greater
regulation, th~ followIng Section could be add~d to th~
ordinance:
SectIon 6281. Sqllcltations and
Peddllnq.
( a ) Any
soliCitation In
person engagIng in any
the City of Santa
Monica shall make available on the
request of any person beIng SolICIted
a written statement indicatIng:
(1) The name of the
person or organization making the
SolicitatIon.
(2) The address of the
national, state, or local headquartprs
of the person or organization for
WhICh the solicitation will bp.
undertaken.
(31 The manner in which
the solICIted funds will be utIlIzed.
(4) Whether or not the
organIzatIon for WhICh money IS being
solicited has a charItable tax
19
e
e
exemption under both federal and state
law.
(b) A copy of the wrItten
statement shall be filed WIth the CIty
Clerk one day prior to any
soliCItation In th~ CIty.
(c) For purposes of thIS
Chapter] solICItatIon means a request
made in person for a contrIbution for
polItIcal] religIOUS] or charltahl~
purposes made In public or on private
property not own~d or controlled by
the soliCItor or person or
organIzatIon for whom the soliCItor is
employed or working.
(d) The follOWIng are exempted
from the operation of this SectIon:
r1) SoliCitatIon by any
organization from Its members.
(2) Solicitation WhICh is
subject to dIsclosure under state or
federal polItIcal dIsclosure laws.
ThIS SectIon reqUIres a soliCItor, upon request, to
prOVIde a wrItten statem~nt contaInIng the Id~ntity of th~
solicitor and the purpose to WhICh the soliCIted funds WIll be
put. A copy of the wrItten statement must be flIed WIth the
20
e
e
City Clerk. CertaIn types of solicltatlon are exceptpd from
the requIrements of the Sectlon.
RECOMMENDATION.
It I~ respectfully recommended that the accompanYlng
ordInance be introduced for first readIng.
PREPARED BY: Robert M. Myers) City Attorney
21
e
e
CA:RMM:brsollc5/word
CIty CouncIl MeetIng 10-28-86
Santa MonIca, CalIfornia
ORDINANCE NUMBER
(CIty Council SerIes)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SANTA MONICA ADDING CHAPTER 2B TO
ARTICLE VI OF THE SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODF.
RELATING TO SOLICITATIONS AND PEDDLING
AND REPEALING SECTIONS 6243 THROUGH 6243J OF
THE SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. SectIons 6243, 6243A, 6243B, 6253C, 62430,
6243E, 6243F, 6243G, 6243H, 62431, and 6243J of the Santa
MonIca MuniCIpal Code are repealed.
SECTION 2.
Chapter 28 IS added to ArtIcle VI of the
Santa Monica MunIcipal Code to read as follows:
CHAPTER 2B
SolICItations
And PeddlIng.
SectIon
6280.
RestrIctIons Upon
TIme, Place, and Manner of SolICItatIons
and Peddllnq. No solICItatIon or peddlIng
shall
bE'
conducted at any placE' of
reSIdence In the City where any SIgn
prohIbItIng trespaSSIng or solICItatIon
has been posted or dIsplayed. If the SIgn
posted or dIsplayed limIts the hours of
1
. .
e
e
trespassIng
solicItatIon
or
or
solicItatIon,
no
peddlIng
shall
be
conducted at any place of resIdence In the
City during the time perIod posted or
dIsplayed.
SECTION 3. Any provISIon of the Santa MonIca Municipal
Code or appendIces thereto InconSIstent With the prOVJSIOnS of
this ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistenCies and no
further, IS hereby repealed or modified to that extent
necessary to affect the provisions of this ordinance.
SECTION 4. If any sectIon, subs~ctlon, sentence,
clause, or phrase of this ordinance IS for any reason held to
b~ invalid or unconstitutional by a deCISIon of any court of
competent jurIsdIction, such decision shall not affect the
valIdIty of the remainIng portIons of the ordInance. The CIty
Council hereby declares that it would have passed thIS
ordInance and each and every sectIon, subsectIon, sentencPJ
clause, or phrase not declared invalId or unconstitutIonal
WIthout regard to whether any portIon of the ordlnance would
be subsequently declared InvalId or unconstItutional.
2
.
e
.
SECTION 5.
e
The Mayor shall sIgn and the City Clerk
shall attest to the passage of thIS ordInance. The CIty Clprk
shall cause the same to be published once in the officIal
newspaper wIthin 15 days after its adoptIon. The ordInance
shall be effective 30 days from Its adoptIon.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~ ~. L~
ROBERT M. MYERS
City Attorney
(J - --.
3